On Thu, 2017-09-21 at 08:58 -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> I think this is a matter of style and as such just different
> opinions.
>
> Considering the current mixed style I would proposed a poll.
>
> I obviously vote for moving to GLib functions directly.
This is my vote as well (which is mayb
> On 21 Sep 2017, at 14:58, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
>
>>>
>>> On 20 Sep 2017, at 18:27, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 06:15:49PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2017, at 17:51, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 20,
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 08:58:04AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> I obviously vote for moving to GLib functions directly.
Regarding the amount of changes this means, and potential extra-rebasing
work, one possible way of integrating these changes would be to only
switch to glib a function or a fi
>
> > On 20 Sep 2017, at 18:27, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 06:15:49PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 20 Sep 2017, at 17:51, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 05:31:37PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
>
> On 20 Sep 2017, at 18:27, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 06:15:49PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 20 Sep 2017, at 17:51, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 05:31:37PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
> O
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 06:15:49PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
>
>
> > On 20 Sep 2017, at 17:51, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 05:31:37PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 20 Sep 2017, at 16:51, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> On 20 Sep 2017, at 17:51, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 05:31:37PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 20 Sep 2017, at 16:51, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 02:54:31PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
>
>> The b
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 05:31:37PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
>
>
> > On 20 Sep 2017, at 16:51, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 02:54:31PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
> >>>
> The benefit of doing it that way (in addition to requiring less sourc
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 02:54:31PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
> > >
> > >> The benefit of doing it that way (in addition to requiring less source
> > >> code
> > >> changes and making following rebases or merge much easier) is that it
> > >> leaves
> > >> the option to instrument sp
> On 20 Sep 2017, at 16:51, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 02:54:31PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
>>>
The benefit of doing it that way (in addition to requiring less source code
changes and making following rebases or merge much easier) is that it
>>>
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 02:54:31PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
> >
> >> The benefit of doing it that way (in addition to requiring less source code
> >> changes and making following rebases or merge much easier) is that it
> >> leaves
> >> the option to instrument spice allocations speci
On 20 September 2017 at 20:54, Christophe de Dinechin
wrote:
>
>> On 20 Sep 2017, at 11:53, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
>> There are many tools to instruments memory allocations and is not hard
>> to write one on your own. For instance knowing that objects file takes
>> precedence over libraries you
> On 20 Sep 2017, at 11:53, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
>
>>>
>>> On 20 Sep 2017, at 09:50, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
>>>
>>> Reduce the usage of spice_new*/spice_malloc* allocations.
>>> They were designed in a similar way to GLib ones.
>>> Now that we use GLib make sense to remove them.
>>> Howeve
>
> > On 20 Sep 2017, at 09:50, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> >
> > Reduce the usage of spice_new*/spice_malloc* allocations.
> > They were designed in a similar way to GLib ones.
> > Now that we use GLib make sense to remove them.
> > However the versions we support for GLib can use different memory
> On 20 Sep 2017, at 09:50, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
>
> Reduce the usage of spice_new*/spice_malloc* allocations.
> They were designed in a similar way to GLib ones.
> Now that we use GLib make sense to remove them.
> However the versions we support for GLib can use different memory
> allocators
Reduce the usage of spice_new*/spice_malloc* allocations.
They were designed in a similar way to GLib ones.
Now that we use GLib make sense to remove them.
However the versions we support for GLib can use different memory
allocators so we have to match g_free with GLib allocations
and spice_* ones
16 matches
Mail list logo
